Evidence of Bad Character Case Study

Evidence of Bad Character Case Study 1.That Z had sex with T D H The evidence that Z had sex with T D H can be admitted with the agreement of all the parties[1]. However it is unlikely that Z would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence. Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates, â€Å"Evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if: It is important explanatory evidence, It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which – is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible Therefore it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter that is either a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In order to determine whether or not the evidence has substantial probative value case law prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be considered where it was considered that such evidence could be admitted if it was â€Å"striking similarity[2]†and of â€Å"sufficient probative force to overcome prejudice.[3]† It is likely that this evidence will be admitted. 2.That Z was convicted of wasting police time The evidence that Z had been convicted of wasting police time could again be admitted if both parties agree to the evidence being admitted. However it is unlikely that Z would agree that this evidence can be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence. Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates that â€Å"evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if: It is important explanatory evidence, It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which – is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible Therefore it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter that is either a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In order to determine whether or not the evidence has substantial probative value case law prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be considered, as above and in consideration of that evidence it is unlikely that the evidence will be admitted. This does not appear to be of substantial importance and it is likely that the jury could reach the right conclusion without hearing this evidence. 3.That W is a lesbian who is prejudiced against men The evidence that W is a lesbian who is prejudiced against men can be admitted with the agreement of all the parties[4]. However it is unlikely that W would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence. Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates, â€Å"evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if: It is important explanatory evidence, It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which – is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible Therefore it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter that is either a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. On this basis it is unlikely that this evidence will be admitted. 4.Psychiatric evidence in respect of Y The evidence that Y is suffering from Potipahr’s Wife Syndrome can be admitted by agreement by the parties. [5] However it is unlikely that Y would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence. Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates that â€Å"evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if: It is important explanatory evidence, It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which – is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible X will need to argue that the evidence is important explanatory evidence. Evidence is â€Å"important explanatory evidence† for these purposes if â€Å"(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and (b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial[6]. Except in relation to evidence of conduct, which is alleged to be similar to matters in dispute at the trial, evidence of witness’s bad character may not be adduced without the leave of the court[7]. Section 100(3) identifies certain factors to be taken into account by the trial judge, alongside any others considered relevant, in exercising his discretion to grant leave to allow bad character evidence to be given. Such factors include the number of relevant incidents, the lapse of time, and other common sense considerations relating to similarities between past and present conduct and questions of contested identity. Therefor e such evidence will only be admitted if it bears substantial probative value, and the court grants leave. It would therefore be concluded that in this instance that the evidence would be admitted. 5.Previous evidence of V Assuming as discussed above that the X is not successful in admitting any of the evidence (as if he is this will mean that the evidence of his bad character and previous convictions will automatically be admitted) the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains a dedicated scheme of rules to regulate the admissibility of evidence of the accused’s extraneous misconduct in s101 (1). These rules are different from those rules that exist for the admittance of other witness’s previous character. In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if – all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it, It is important explanatory evidence, It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution It has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant, It is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, of The defendant has made an attack on another person’s character Therefore this evidence can be admitted by agreement by the parties however this is unlikely. Therefore it is likely that the prosecution will attempt to admit the evidence under sections c and d and this are provisions, which are concerned with similar fact evidence. One significant dimension of the â€Å"similar facts† cases concerned the dangers posed by deliberate collusion between witnesses or innocent cross-contamination of their evidence. In determining the admissibility of evidence of the accused’s misconduct in the first instance, however, section 109 obliges the court to treat the evidence as true, unless â€Å"it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true[8]. Therefore given the similarities between the previous incident and the current one it is likely that this information will be allowed to be admitted into the current proceedings. The reason for this is that the evidence can either be considered to be important explanatory evidence or alternatively that it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution 6.X’s previous conviction of Exposure The CJA 2003 contains a dedicated scheme of rules to regulate the admissibility of evidence of the accused’s extraneous misconduct in s101(1): In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if – all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it, It is important explanatory evidence, It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution It has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant, It is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, of The defendant has made an attack on another person’s character Therefore this evidence can be admitted by agreement by the parties however this is unlikely. Therefore it is likely that the prosecution will attempt to admit the evidence under sections c and d and this are provisions, which are concerned with similar fact evidence. One significant dimension of the â€Å"similar facts† cases concerned the dangers posed by deliberate collusion between witnesses or innocent cross-contamination of their evidence. In determining the admissibility of evidence of the accused’s misconduct in the first instance, however, section 109 obliges the court to treat the evidence as true, unless â€Å"it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true[9]. Section 107 where evidence of the accused’s bad character has been admitted into the trial without the accused’s agreement, under section 101(1) paragraphs (c)-(g), and the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the prosecution’s case that (i) that evidence is contaminated such that (ii) a conviction would be unsafe, â€Å"the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of this offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury†. Either way, proceedings will not be allowed to continue if it emerges during the course of the trial that material evidence of bad character has been contaminated. A previous conviction can be admitted as evidence of propensity if it falls into either: (i) one of the categories of offences; or (ii) the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would be the same. Thus, a person who has been convicted of actual bodily harm and is now charged with actual bodily harm will fall into the second category (same description)-but a person who has been convicted of theft and is now charged with burglary would not. However, the Home Office will introduce two sets of categories of offences-the first broadly comprising all Theft Act offences, the second comprising sexual offences involving sexual contact with children. Therefore given the similarities between the previous incident and the current one it is likely that this information will be allowed to be admitted into the current proceedings. The reason for this is that the evidence can either be considered to be important explanatory evidence or alternatively that it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution 7.Directing the Jury Because of the statutory grounding of the criminal evidence rules the rules on directing the jury, in relation to similar fact evidence and evidence of bad character have altered somewhat. The provisions that we are concerned with here are contained within Section 107 where evidence of the accused’s bad character has been admitted into the trial without the accused’s agreement, under section 101(1) paragraphs (c)-(g), and the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the prosecution’s case that (i) that evidence is contaminated such that (ii) a conviction would be unsafe, â€Å"the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of this offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury†. Either way, proceedings will not be allowed to continue if it emerges during the course of the trial that material evidence of bad character has been contaminated. Finally, there is a power for the court to discharge the jury and either direct an acquittal or order a retrial if a judge, having admitted evidence of bad character, later decides that such evidence was contaminated. Contamination is defined in terms of evidence that is false or misleading in any respect, as a result of the witness who gave the evidence either having agreed to give false evidence, or being affected by hearing other evidence in the case. It seems these provisions are aimed particularly at allegations of multiple sexual abuse where other allegations are, on occasion, felt to be the consequence of collaboration by different witnesses. In such cases it would be open to the judge to cure the problem by direction to the jury, but where it is felt that direction is inadequate and any subsequent conviction would be unsafe, the judge is empowered to discharge the jury. In conclusion therefore if the judge is satisfied with the evidence and there is no evidence of contamination or collusion then this evidence of the defendant’s previous bad character will be admitted. Bibliography Legislation Criminal Justice Act 2003 Books Dennis I, (2002) â€Å"The Law of Evidence†, Sweet and Maxwell Huxley P O’Connell M, (2004) â€Å"Statutes on Evidence†, Oxford University Press McEwan J, (1998) â€Å"Evidence and the Adversarial Process, Hart Publishing Tapper C, (2003) â€Å"Cross and Tapper on Evidence, Oxford University Press Zuckermann A Roberts P, (2004) â€Å"Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press 1 Footnotes [1] S100 (1) (C) [2] DPP v Boardman 1975] AC 421 HL [3] DPP v P [1991] 2 AC 447 at 460 [4] S100 (1) (C) [5] S100 (1) (C) [6] S100(2) [7] S100(4) [8] S 109 (2) [9] S 109 (2)

Marketing Communication Essay

â€Å"Brand positioning is an attempt to create and maintain a unique representation of the brand in customer’s mind, a representation that is expected to stimulate choice of that brand† (Rossiter, 2005, p.42). Positioning, in fact, refers to how customers think about different brands in a market. Through brand positioning a company attempts to build a sustainable competitive advantage on product attributes in the consumer’s mind. Nevertheless, developing a successful positioning strategy is not easy. Positioning products in a complex market can be one of a company’s most difficult decisions (Gwin, 2003, p.30). Brand positioning is the first stage of marcoms planning. â€Å"Before the manager can make a reasonable decision about where the brand should be headed via its marcoms, the manager first has to decide – to change, if necessary, or to shore up and reconfirm – the brand’s positioning† (Rossiter, 2005, p.32). The three-level procedure for positioning, presented by Rossiter and Bellman (2005, p.42), contains T-C-B positioning model, I-D-U benefit analysis and a-b-e benefit claim model. The T-C-B positioning model requires managerial decisions on three factors – Target Customer (T) for the brand, Category Need (C) into which the brand should be positioned and Key Benefit (B) which will be offered by the brand. In order to correctly determine the category need, benefits sought and the purchase decision process, managers have to rely on a customer research. The most useful types of research are individual depth interviews and Marcoms Situation Audit (Rossiter, 2005, p.44). The Target Customer decision answers the question â€Å"Who is the brand for?†, and it has to be defined for different types of customer, known as stakeholders. However, the most important is the decision on End-Customer target for brand positioning, and it should be defined as broadly as possible, including all current and potential users of the brand. Category Need (C) is another positioning decision, and it aims to answer the question â€Å"What is the brand?†. It is essential that the Category Need is identified and described in customer language and from customer’s point of view. The Key Benefit (B) decision is the third factor in the brand’s positioning, and it includes several sub-decisions. Firstly, managers have to decide between central, differentiated and central me-too benefit positioning within the category. Secondly, the decision on the emphasised benefit type has to be  made. The benefit to be emphasized, or the Key Benefit, can be instinctual, archetypal, emotional or rational. Finally, managers must decide on entry-ticket benefits that have to be mentioned, and any inferior benefits, which should be tr aded off or omitted in the marketing communications. Key Benefit (B) selection for the T-C-B brand positioning decision is accomplished by conducting an I-D-U Benefit Analysis of competing brands in the category. The manager has to select the Key Benefit that is important or motivating to target customers (I), deliverable by the brand (D) and unique to the brand (U) (Rossiter, 2005, p.62). To decide which benefits are important, deliverable and unique, managers have to evaluate the potential of multiple benefits, using multiattribute model. Importance or desirability of benefits could be determined by identifying the important customer benefits in a product category, and asking users to rate the desirability of each benefit. To find out the Delivery, the same customers who provided the importance ratings could be asked to rate how well each competing brand delivers on each of the important benefits. Uniqueness, or differentially superior delivery, could be determined by calculating Brand Preference score from I-D-U ratings – by multiplying delivery rating of the brand by the importance weight for each benefit and then summing them (Rossiter, 2005, p.64). After completing the I-D-U analysis, managers have to choose one of five strategic options for increasing the brand’s market share via Key Benefit positioning. These options are: to increase the brand’s perceived delivery on an important benefit; to increase the perceived importance of a benefit; to decrease a competitor’s perceived delivery; to add a new benefit; and to change the choice rule. The a-b-e benefit claim model is the third, final stage of positioning. This model looks at the structure of benefit claims, and distinguishes between attributes (a), which are ‘what the brand has† (objectively), benefits (b), which are â€Å"what the customer wants† (subjectively), and emotions (e), which refer to â€Å"what the customer feel†. Decisions made in T-C-B positioning model, I-D-U benefit analysis and a-b-e benefit claim model are incorporated in the positioning statement for the brand. In our consultancy report we used T-C-B positioning model to perform the  positioning analysis for Mortein insect spray. Keeping in mind that the definition of Target Customer should be broad and include all current and potential users of the brand, the End-Customer target for Mortein insect spray was defined as â€Å"Consumers of household insecticide products†. Category Need into which Mortein insect spray is to be positioned was defined, from the customer’s point of view, as â€Å"Insect killers†. The benefit to be emphasised, or the Key Benefit, was identified as â€Å"Fast killing of insects†. We decided to adopt central positioning within the category because Mortein is the leading brand in the Australian household insecticide market. Rational approach, or Rational Selling Proposition, which is focused on a functional performance benefit, was used to identify the Key Benefit. Since the choice between brands of insect spray is Informationally motivated, the rational approach is the best alternative for identifying the Key Benefit. In order to identify the importance or desirability of benefits, we provided a small sample of users of insect spray with a list of benefits, and asked them to rate each of these benefits on a 9-point scale from extremely desirable to extremely undesirable. From their responses we found out that the most important benefits were fast killing, low price and safety. To determine the delivery by each brand we asked the same group of users to rate, on a five point rating scale, how well different brands perform on each of the important benefits. Mortein insect spray scored 4.5 on fast killing, 1.5 on price and 5.0 on safety. Uniqueness was estimated by calculating the Brand Preference score for Mortein insect spray, which was 32.5, or72% of the Ideal brand score. Based on that analysis, first I-D-U strategy option – to increase our brand’s perceived delivery on an important benefit – has been selected. We would like to increase the delivery rating on the most important benefit – fast killing, and, also, to slightly increase delivery rating on price. Regarding the a-b-e benefit claim model, since Mortein insect spray is an Informationally motivated product, we decided to use e-→b (negative emotion → benefit), or Problem-solution benefit chain. People feel annoyed because of the presence of insects in their homes (they have a strong negative emotion), so Mortein will offer them a benefit of fast killing of insects. There are also other models for brand positioning that managers can employ. Perceptual mapping techniques are frequently used to aid managers in making brand positioning decisions (Kohli, 1993, p.10). Perceptual maps could be used to determine where the brand is positioned with the respect to the competitive brands, and to help identify product or service attributes which are important to customers, and which can be used to differentiate one company’s offering from the others in the category. The perceptual mapping delivers a graphic map of the various attributes, locating in space the different brands already in the marketplace with relation to each other and with relation to various attributes uncovered by quantitative surveying of customers and potential customers (Cahill, 1997, p.101). Amongst various techniques of perceptual mapping, the most frequently used are Factor Analysis, Discriminant analysis and Multidimensional Scaling. Factor Analysis is essentially a data reduction technique in which the objective is to represent the original pool of attributes in terms of a smaller number of dimensions or factors (Kohli, 1993, p.10). After the factors have been identified, the brand’s ratings on these factors are used to position the brands in perceptual space. Factor Analysis works best for promotional and communications strategies because it yields more affective dimensions (Gwin, 2003, p.33). Discriminant analysis is also used to reduce the number of attributes to a smaller number of underlying dimensions. However, unlike Factor Analysis, it focuses on attributes which show differences between brands (Kohli, 1993, p.11). Since it yields more objective dimensions, Discriminant analysis is most often used for new product design. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) enables managers to map brands spatially, so that the relative positions in the mapped space reflect the degree of perceived similarity between the brands. Respondents are asked to evaluate brands in pairs, judging the overall similarity of the brands, not individual attributes (Kohli, 1993, p.12). The best use of Multidimensional Scaling is in established markets, with numerous brands available to respondents. On the other hand, Gwin and Gwin (2003) favour another tool, the Product Attributes model, over perceptual mapping techniques. Product Attributes model assumes that consumer choice is based on the characteristics (or attributes) of a brand. The consumer’s choice is based on maximizing the level of satisfaction received from the product attributes  subject to a budget constraint (Gwin, 2003, p.32). The main strength of this model is the ability to incorporate the impact of price into assessment of brand positioning. Perceptual mapping is useful because it makes easier for people to see and understand relationship when they are presented graphically, rather than when they are offered in columns of figures or in long verbal descriptions (Cahill, 1997, p.101). If we used perceptual mapping in our consultancy report it would, enable us to locate different brands in space, and, actually, see what Mortein stands for in relation to the competitors. Nevertheless, this technique has several drawbacks. Firstly, it compares only two, usually most important attributes, while other attributes ate neglected. Secondly, there is no way of representing benefit importance in perceptual maps because the attributes are invariably plotted as though they were of equal importance (Rossiter, 2005, p.70). In our particular case, for Mortein insect spray, if we employed perceptual mapping, we would probably obtain similar results to those from I-D-U benefit analysis. However, by using perceptual mapping techniques, we would have to spend considerably more time and effort on research and statistical analysis. Therefore, we believe that the I-D-U model favoured by Rossiter and Bellman (2005) is superior to perceptual mapping and other models of brand positioning. References Cahill, D., (1997), How Consumers Pick a Hotel: Strategic Segmentation and Target Marketing, The Haworth Press, Inc., New York Greenberg, M., and McDonald, S. S., (1989), ‘Successful Needs/Benefits Segmentation: A user’s Guide’, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, Iss. 3, pp. 29-36 Gwin, C. and Gwin, C., (2003), ‘Product attributes model: A tool for evaluating brand positioning’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, Iss. 2, pp. 30-42 Haley, R., (1995), ‘Benefit segmentation: A decision-oriented research tool’, Marketing Management, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 59-63 Kohli, C. and Leuthesser, L., (1993), ‘Product positioning: A comparison of perceptual mapping techniques’, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 2, Iss. 4, pp. 10-20 Kotler, P. et al., (2004), Marketing, 6th edition, Pearson Education Australia Rossiter, J. R. and Bellman, S., (2005), Marketing communications; theory and applications, Pearson Education Australia Wedel, M. and Steenkamp, J. E. M., (1991), ‘A Clusterwise Regression Method for Simultaneous Fuzzy Market Structuring and Benefit Segmentation’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, Iss. 4, pp. 385-392

Summary “The Environmental Issue from Hell”

We’re Hot as Hell Is global warming a moral dilemma? Is it the public policy problem from hell? In â€Å"The Environmental Issue from Hell,† Bill McKibben uses many of such phrases en route to arguing for a new approach to global warming. By discussing hell and morals, the reader’s mind is already equating it with two heavily debated issues. Therefore, we begin to question their existence and how we should  deal  with the subjects. McKibben wisely chooses these disputes to represent his main concerns: the ways in which consumerism affects the global ecosystem, and the impact of humans on the environment.McKibben presents a solution on how to handle each of these environmental issues, utilizing both the people and the government. McKibben's point of how consumerism affects the global ecosystem is certainly relatable. With all the new technology forming, global warming has only increased, despite the many efforts to make everything more energy efficient. McKibb en points out that, â€Å"most of us live lives so divorced from the natural world that we hardly notice the changes anyway. (McKibben 747) Choosing the word divorce (which everyone has heard and in some way or another experienced), and also elaborating about parking garages  and air conditioning captivates the reader. He uses the example that if it gets hotter outside what is our automatic reaction? We turn the AC up without contemplation. He explains that these new technologies are not letting us feel the consequences of global warming, causing us to be completely ignorant of it. Related article: †The Proverbs of Administration† SummaryMckibben feels it is subsequently important to make people realize now because, â€Å"By the time the magnitude of the change is truly in our faces, it will be too late to do much about it. â€Å"(747). The author recognizes the delay between the actions we take to lower carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the actual results of it lowering. Due to the outcomes, Mckibben expresses, â€Å"†¦we need to be making the switch to solar  and wind and  hydrogen power  right now to prevent disaster decades away. â€Å" (747), summing up his thought that we need to be making the change to more energy efficient and eco-friendly power before it is too late.Mckibben inaugurates his third paragraph suggesting that we make the environmental issues, â€Å"†the great moral crisis of our time, and the equivalent of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. â€Å"(747). He uses this analogy to explain that in his opinion, we are strip-mining the present and destroying all of whom come after it. Thus, leading him to discuss exactly how humans’ materialistic ways have impacted the earth. From Bangladesh living three months in thigh high-deep water, to polar bears becoming â€Å"20% scrawnier than they were a decade ago† (748).The environmentalist writer goes on to discuss how to deal with global warming since it is indeed creeping up on us. Mckibben once again articulates his repetitive view that, â€Å"it’s a moral question, finally, if you think we owe any debt to the future. † (748). In many circumstances it is believed that if it had been done to us, we would dislike the generation that did it, just as how we will one day be disliked. The solution given in the essay on how to handle these environmental issues is to start a moral campaign.In other words, â€Å"†¦ turn it into a political issue, just as bus boycotts began to make public the issue of race, fo rcing the system to respond. â€Å" (748). As a part of the overall populist causing these issues, Mckibben understands that the hardest part about starting this moral campaign is identifying a villain to overcome. Briefly voicing that Carbon dioxide is the main villain, but you can't be mad at it, only the people responsible, which is us. We often become guilty of only looking through our own perspective lenses.In his eyes, we have fancy technology, unnecessarily big cars, and most importantly ignorance about the environmental world around us. McKibben is asking for us to take a  step  back and look from someone else’s point of view, which as an author is a brilliant idea. He is asking us as the readers to be open-minded and look through someone else’s eyes with the hope that it will be his. Works Cited Mckibben, Bill. â€Å"The Environmental Issue from Hell. † The Mcgraw-Hill Reader. Ed. Gilbert Muller. 11th ed. Boston: Learning Solutions. 2011. 746-49. P rint.

Analysis Of The Poem Song Of Myself 1 2 `` By Walt...

I will compare â€Å"Song of Myself 1 2† by Walt Whitman and, â€Å"Slant of light† by Emily Dickson by analyzing each poems themes, structure, and figurative language. Death in an inevitable part of the life cycle. Before the human soul passes into the spiritual world every person sees a â€Å"Slant of light†, which represents heaven opening its gates to your soul. Dickson foresees death, and is not at peace with an uncertain afterlife. â€Å"That oppresses, like the Heft of Cathedral Tunes† Every person faces the challenge of accepting death, but no one can explain if the soul releases from the body because of death. â€Å"None may teach it – Any – ‘Tis the Seal Despair† You cannot control death, there is method to prepare for death, it is an experience everybody goes through but nobody can explain how it feels. â€Å"An imperial affliction Sent us of the Air† The imperial affliction is time/mother nature, it is the supreme ruler because it cannot be controlled, every soul has a limited amount of time on this Earth. Air represents the pleasing of the soul, humans constantly breathe air because withou t it they would die, and likewise people constantly thrive for happiness to take advantage of the time because without happiness humans would be dead inside. Time forces humans to thrive to satisfy their soul’s because every new day is another closer to death. Dickson’s poems lacked words but, not imaginative ideas. Dickson used four couplets, and one tercet to help organize her thoughts. Dickson lines